Redistricting veil would erode open government

February 19, 2012

Republican leaders in Florida's Legislature promised the most-transparent process ever to redraw congressional and legislative districts after voters amended the constitution to make the once-a-decade undertaking fairer and non-partisan.

But as anyone familiar with business-as-usual in the state Capitol knows, talk is cheap. Sometimes it's worthless.

Last week a House panel passed a bill that was breathtaking in its brazenness. It would shield lawmakers and their staffs from having to testify or turn over documents about their legislative actions if they get sued.

So much for transparency.

The bill popped up late in this year's legislative session, with legal challenges brewing against the redistricting maps lawmakers approved only days before. As Democratic Rep. Darren Soto of Orlando said, "I think the timing is telling."

Florida's Fair District amendments, approved by voters in 2010, bar lawmakers from drawing congressional and legislative districts "with the intent" to favor politicians or parties. Legislative leaders were so unhappy with the amendments that they used public money in a legal bid to overturn them. Fortunately, they failed.

But if the House bill becomes law, courts would have almost no way of deciding whether lawmakers complied with the amendments. How could they — and the public — glean the intent behind the maps without hearing from lawmakers and staff or reviewing relevant documents? And what do lawmakers have to hide?

The bill's supporters insist it wasn't drafted with redistricting in mind. They cited other lawsuits against the Legislature in which lawmakers had been called to testify. Yet judges have the authority to quash subpoenas that target lawmakers, and have done so routinely. The bill would remove that discretion from judges.

The House bill's sweeping secrecy provision for documents would conflict with another constitutional amendment passed by voters — the one declaring all government records open to the public. Though the bill declares it wouldn't impede access to public records, First Amendment advocates say it would weaken the courts' ability to enforce that right.

Supporters claimed the bill would give Florida lawmakers and staff a privilege enjoyed by their counterparts in other states. But Floridians for decades have held their government representatives to a higher standard of openness. Isn't that what exceptionalism is about?

It would be outrageous if lawmakers eroded that heritage — and flouted the will of the people — just to worm their way out of defending their redistricting maps.